NOORJAHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Application has been filed for suspension of sentence. Applicant is accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.124 of 2013 who has been convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 364-A and 387 of the Indian Penal Code on 28 th April 2023, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tope appearing for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Phule, appearing for the State and with their able assistance, we have gone through the entire record which was before the trial Court.

(3.) The first and foremost fact which is required to be noted is that present appellant was on bail throughout the trial. Secondly, she is presently aged 68 years. The prosecution story appears to be that the informant Angad was retired person from PWD / B & C Department at Parbhani. He lodged report on 6 th October 2009, but then the learned trial Judge has referred, at the time of referring the history of the case in the Judgment, that as per Exhibit-69 last but one Para of page No.2 of the First Information Report dtd. 22/10/2009. Since 5/6/2009 informant was serving as Deputy Engineer in Public Works Department, subdivision, Parbhani and 40 to 45 days prior to the First Information Report (for short "the FIR"), a lady by name Aayesha Begum had met him. It was informed by her that she is resident of Aurangabad and her husband's name was disclosed as - Yusuf, whose bill was pending with the subdivision, Vaijapur. The outstanding bill was in respect of the work already done by the husband. Though informant has submitted that no bill is pending, yet he informed the lady that he would look into the matter. He then says that he has contacted on phone and also made inquiry in the matter. He says that thereafter inquiry was made frequently by giving a call by said Aayesha Begum.